Benghazi witness gets last message from Ambassador Stevens

The truth is coming out.  Benghazi hearings will be held this week and the cover-up by Obama and Hillary Clinton will be proven.

#Benghazi witness -Ambassador Steven's last message to Greg Hicks, " Greg, we are under attack..." ijreview.com/2013/05/50193-… WH & #Hillary LIED
— Middleboro Jones (@Leadership_One) May 6, 2013

Like Listening to a Ten Year Old Child

Listening to #Obama @ his live press conference is like listening to a 10 yr old tell you that " The dog ate my homework" / More #Lies & #BS

— Middleboro Jones (@Leadership_One) March 1, 2013

Benghazi - Lies, Lies and more Damned Lies

I watched the hearing yesterday where Senators tried to get answers from Hillary Clinton.

 

Thanks to Senator John McCain and Senator Rand Paul.  They did a good job of trying to get to the truth.  The rest of those charged with investigating this tragedy were woefully inadequate.

 

4 good men died - Hillary Clinton and Obama lied.  That is the truth.

 

 

Mother of American killed in Benghazi to President Obama, " you screwed up, you didn't do a good job, I lost my son."

Please read the enclosed transcript from a CNN interview with Fran Smith, Mother of one of the men slain in Benghazi.  She deserves answers about what happened there as do the American people.

Read the whole thing.....  She lays it out bare to those responsible for the deaths of 4 fine US citizens -  The Administration and State Department is more worried about the re-election campaign than telling the Mother of Sean Smith the truth about how they failed to protect the US Ambassador and his staff. 

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Erin, thanks. Good evening, everyone. We begin tonight "Keeping Them Honest," with a mother who is now asking the toughest question any mom ever can. Why is my son dead? 

That is all Pat Smith wants to know. Her son, Sean Smith, was one of the four Americans killed on September 11th in that terror attack on American facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Sean Smith, who is one of the computer specialists at the American consulate there. A month later -- a month after she watched her son's casket come off a cargo plane, a month after she says everyone promised her answers, everyone all the way up to the president of the United States. She says she is still waiting to hear. Still waiting for answers. Waiting for a call. 

Congress held hearings today. We'll talk about that shortly, but first, my conversation with Sean Smith's mom, Pat. 

 

COOPER: Pat, I appreciate you being with us. And I'm just so sorry for your loss. What do you want people to know about your son, about Sean? 

PAT SMITH, SON KILLED IN BENGHAZI ATTACK: Well, god. He was my only child. And he was good, he was good at what he did, he'd loved it. 

COOPER: He loved working with computers? 

SMITH: Computers, radios. He was good at what he did. 

COOPER: Was that something he had done as a kid? I mean how did -- did he always -- was he always good with computer? 

SMITH: Well, when he was a kid, computers weren't out yet. And -- 

(LAUGHTER)

And then they were out and he -- I got a computer and he started playing with them and he started showing me how you could build a flame thrower and -- by just watching a computer and then told you how to do it. So that's how it started. 

COOPER: He lived in the Netherlands. Were you able to communicate a lot? I mean he'd served in a lot of very dangerous places. Did you always know where he was? 

SMITH: I always knew where he was when he told me. For example, this time he was in the Hague and that is where he was stationed. He was supposed to be there for about two years. And then he would transfer some place else. I did not know he was going to be in Libya. 

COOPER: Did he ever talk about the dangers that came along with his job? I mean he -- he serve d in Iraq as well. 

SMITH: Yes, in fact, he sent me -- I still have it on my computer where he sent me this thing. He was in working in the palace over there. 

COOPER: In Baghdad. 

SMITH: And they -- yes, in Baghdad, and he says, got to go, and suddenly he just disappeared and I said, well, what's happening over there. And he said listen. And I was listening, and suddenly I heard boom. Where they were shooting at him. 

COOPER: You must have worried a lot. 

SMITH: When that was over. I can't spend my life worrying about it. I accepted what he wanted to do. 

COOPER: I want to play for our viewers some of what President Obama said about your son when he returned home. Let's watch. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Sean Smith, it seems, lived to serve. First in the Air Force, then with you at the State Department. He knew the perils of this calling, from his time in Baghdad. There in Benghazi, far from home, he surely thought of Heather and Samantha and Nathan, and he laid down his life in service to us all. 

Today, Sean is home. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: He's mentioning his wife and his children. When you heard the president say that, what did you think? 

SMITH: This is the first time I heard the president say that. 

COOPER: It is really? 

SMITH: Yes, he never told -- didn't tell me that. Sean knew he was in a bunch of scary places. I knew he was in security places. I didn't expect him to get blown up. I didn't expect him to die. COOPER: Do you feel that you know what happened or are you still searching for answers? Have you been in contact with the State Department? Have they reached out to you and given you details of what happened? 

SMITH: That's a funny subject. I begged them to tell me what was -- what happened. I said I want to know all the details, all of the details no matter what it is, and I'll make up my own mind on it. And everyone of them, all the big shots over there told me that -- they promised me, they promised me that they would tell me what happened. As soon as they figure it out. 

No one, not one person has ever, ever gotten back to me other than media people and the gaming people. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Her son was a big video gamer. 

We are going to have more of my conversation with Pat Smith after a quick break. She has some very tough words for this administration who she says has forgotten the promises they made to her the day Sean's body was returned. 

Also tonight, the latest on today's congressional hearings into the attacks. Jill Dougherty and Fran Townsend join us next. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: We're talking tonight with Pat Smith whose son Sean Smith was killed in the Libya terror attack. Former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty was also killed. Today his mother Barbara asked Mitt Romney to stop invoking her son's name on the campaign stump, quote, "I don't trust Romney," she says. "He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda." 

Pat Smith did not speak about anyone's political agenda tonight. She is, however, bitterly, bitterly disappointed with the State Department, the Defense Department and the White House tonight. You're going to hear shortly about how the State Department is going to respond to her charges. 

But first, though, more of my conversation with Pat Smith starting with her as yet unfulfilled search for answers. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Who told you that they would give you information? 

SMITH: You'll love this. Obama told me. Hillary promised me. Joe Biden -- Joe Biden is a pressure. He was a real sweetheart. But he also told -- they all told me that -- they promised me. And I told them please, tell me what happened. Just tell me what happened. 

COOPER: So you're still waiting to hear from somebody about what happened to your son? About what they know? Or even what they don't know. 

SMITH: Right. Right. Officially yes. I told them, please don't give me any baloney that comes through with this political stuff. I don't want political stuff. You can keep your political, just tell me the truth. What happened. And I still don't know. In fact, today I just heard something more that he died of smoke inhalation. 

COOPER: So you don't even know the cause of death? 

SMITH: I don't even know if that's true or not. No, I don't. I don't know where. I look at TV and I see bloody hand prints on walls, thinking, my god, is that my son's? I don't know if he was shot. I don't know -- I don't know. They haven't told me anything. They are still studying it. And the things that they are telling me are just outright lies. 

That Susan Rise, what -- she talked to me personally and she said, she said, this is the way it was. It was -- it was because of this film that came out. 

COOPER: So she told you personally that she thought it was a result of that video of the protest? 

SMITH: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. In fact all of them did. All of them did. Leon Panetta actually took my face in his hands like this and he said, trust me. I will tell you what happened. And so far, he's told me nothing. Nothing at all. And I want to know. 

COOPER: It's important for you to know all the details no matter how horrible. 

SMITH: Yes. 

COOPER: Or no matter how tough they are to hear. 

SMITH: Exactly. I told him, if it's such a secret thing, fine, take me in another room, whisper in my ear what happened so that I know, and we'll go from there. But no. No, they -- you know, they treat me like -- at first I was so proud because they were treating me so nice when I went to that reception. They all came up to me and talked to me and everything. I cried on Obama's shoulder. And he -- then he'd kind of looked off into the distance. 

So that was worthless to me. I want to know, for god's sakes. Or for Allah's sake or whoever's sake is there. 

COOPER: You deserve -- you deserve answers. 

SMITH: I think so. I believe I do. I believe it. It's my son. I had him for the first -- I told Obama personally, I said, look, I had him for his first 17 years and then he went into the service, then you got him. And -- I won't say it the way I said it. But I said you screwed up, you didn't do a good job, I lost my son. And they said, we'll get back to you. We -- I promise, I promise you. I will get back to you. COOPER: Some of the administration have said well, you know, we're investigating, we're still trying to find out answers. But you just want -- 

SMITH: They still are. 

COOPER: You would still want them to contact you and at least keep you apprised of the investigation, of where things are. You would think that they would at least do that. 

SMITH: That would be so nice. That would at least acknowledge that I have a right to know something, something other than, we're checking up on it, or trust me. I like that one the best of all. Trust me. I will let you know. 

Well, I don't trust you anymore. I don't trust you anymore. You -- I'm not going to say lied to me, but you didn't tell me and you knew. 

COOPER: Pat Smith, thank you. 

SMITH: OK. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: A grieving mother. We are joined now by two women who broke the news on the story right from the start. Former Bush homeland security adviser, Fran Townsend, and foreign affairs correspondent, Jill Dougherty. 

We should mention, Fran, as always -- as we always mention, serves on the CIA's external advisory committee. She recently traveled to Libya with her employer MacAndrews & Forbes. That was before the attack and actually had met with Ambassador Stevens. 

Obviously Mrs. Smith is very upset and we -- you know, it's very understandable why she would be. What is the procedure, though, for keeping a family informed? I mean she says, they said we will let you know what happened. Is it -- do they wait until the investigation is over? Or you would think somebody would be in contact with her. 

FRAN TOWNSEND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: Right. So there's actually an office in the Justice Department because this is now obviously a criminal investigation, that's responsible. The Office of Victim Witness Assistance. They are supposed to be the advocates inside the apparatus of the U.S. government to get updates, to make sure that the families are kept apprised. But you would -- you also expect and every department has this. If it's an employee that's lost, or it's a member of one of our law enforcement or intelligence services that agency takes ownership of making sure to shepherd the person through the system and around the system to get information. 

So in many respects, Anderson, it's sort of incomprehensible to me these are people, the family members were identified, they met with senior officials, including the president of the United States and the secretary of state. It's not as though they don't know where she is. She's got -- 

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Right. Initially I thought, well, maybe it's -- you know, it's -- maybe they're in contact with Sean Smith's wife who is I guess in the Netherlands. But she was at this reception. They clearly talked to her. 

TOWNSEND: No, that's right. And the fact oftentimes, Anderson, with a family that's lost someone, there's more than one person, right? So you'll have the parents of the victim. 

COOPER: Right. 

TOWNSEND: You may have a spouse or an extended family. And it becomes the government's responsibility to care for that family and keep them informed. 

COOPER: Well, Jill, I know you reached out to the State Department tonight about the allegations that Pat Smith has made. What are they saying? 

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, there's three things they said to me. They're saying they, since the beginning, have made it a priority to be in touched with the families, maintain regular contact, as they say. They say that in the last 24 hours before the congressional hearing they've reached out by phone to at least one member of the family and told them what would be reported at that -- at that congressional hearing. 

And then they also said we're going to make sure that the mother of Sean is contacted by us. So, they won't get into a lot of specifics but they maintain that they have been in contact with the families in some way or another since the beginning. 

COOPER: So you're saying that they are now saying that they will contact Mrs. Smith? 

DOUGHERTY: They'll make sure. Yes, they said, they will make sure that they are. 

COOPER: At this point, though, I mean, a family member, who's -- who are they supposed to believe? I mean there have been so many different stories out there, Fran, and so many different -- and others, you know, lots of political allegations. We had this hearing today and, you know, some saw it as a political hearing. And politics motivating it. 

What do you -- 

TOWNSEND: You know, look, this is really hard. In the first 48 to 72 hours, the first facts are often wrong. 

COOPER: Right. 

TOWNSEND: And so I think the media and the American people understand that and sort of allowed for that. The problem is, tomorrow is a month since the attack. It is hard to imagine that no one has talked to this woman. The autopsy in which -- was done at Dover Air Force base for all of the victims with FBI agents present is a well known fact. The results of that are understood by investigators and there is no excuse for not sharing that information with this victim's mother. 

COOPER: Right. Jill, the hearing -- let's talk about the hearing that happened today. Which the State Department defended the administration's handling the attack. You say it was highly political. Did it accomplish anything? Did it resolve anything? There's certainly a lot of allegations about the political -- 

(CROSSTALK)

DOUGHERTY: Anderson, you know, I didn't hear a lot of really new information at all. I mean I think, I and some others who were watching it at the time were really struck by the fact that it really turned into his sparring, and it was very, very personal between, you know, the Republicans and the Democrats. 

And so it -- I don't think that it accomplished very much when you get down to the nuts and bolts of what was learned. 

COOPER: One of the most contentious moments, Jill, was, I mean, the State Department said that they had -- I don't have the exact phrasing but basically the appropriate number of people on the ground, and there was -- there was a sharp rebuke from the panel saying, how can you say that when -- given four Americans are dead. 

DOUGHERTY: Right. And that's the essential thing. But I think what -- and not to explain away what the State Department is doing, but their view would be based on the information that they had at that particular point which -- was coming from intelligence agencies and others on the ground. They believe that they had the adequate amount of staffing. 

Now they also say that event was so extraordinary that basically nothing a few more people, a few more, let's say, protective measures could not have protected from something that they are describing, really, as combat -- military combat attack. 

COOPER: There is an investigation underway. I mean, a -- at this point, Fran, who is responsible for giving the definitive account of what happened and what cables were sent in doing this investigation? 

TOWNSEND: Well, as we've said and reported, Anderson, there are a number of -- there's accountability review board, there are these congressional hearings. In the end, the definitive version of the facts will come from the FBI who are responsible for putting together the investigation and a potential prosecution. They will be -- they will be the keepers of the evidence. But I must tell you ,you know, the answer on its face if we had adequate security kind of fails the common sense test. I mean, honestly, if you step back from the partisan politics of Washington, and you talk to average Americans who've got no dog in this fight, they sort of say, look, it's obvious we didn't have adequate security. This isn't -- if we're looking to assign blame, the terrorists are to blame for the death. But if we need -- we want accountability because we want to understand how can we make sure the State Department are working in dangerous places, we want to make sure, how do we assess threats, assign security, and -- 

COOPER: What the State Department has said today in this hearing was that no amount of sort of the usual security would have been able to deal with a -- dozens of attackers. They're saying, there were dozens of attackers who are heavily armed. You say? 

TOWNSEND: I say we have forward operating bases in Iraq and Afghanistan during the height of the war. And we protected -- 

COOPER: And certainly -- and the facility itself was not very secured in terms of the actual technological security devices over there. 

TOWNSEND: That's right. But if it's -- so if you're at a facility that you cannot protect, that it is not possible to protect from the threat that is present, then you shouldn't be there. If you are there and you believe you can protect, then you've got to give it adequate resources. It's -- this is less about to me about blame than it is about accountability. What we ought to care about is accountability to protect other diplomats. 

COOPER: Sure. Because you don't want this to happen again. 

TOWNSEND: Right. 

COOPER: And there are other facilities that we have that are like this consulate. That's the bottom line here. 

TOWNSEND: Right. 

COOPER: And also getting answers for the families. 

Jill Dougherty, I appreciate your reporting. Fran Townsend, as well

OHIO spells FAILURE for OBAMA

If the Feds stopped " cooking the books", the real unemployment rate would be 10.9%

This should come as no surprise to anyone....They are cooking the books to try to make things " look" better for OHB electioneering.....what a scam.

Lies, damned lies and government liars.

Lies, Damned Lies and Government Jobs Data
By Elizabeth MacDonald


Emac's Bottom Line - Published May 02, 2012 - FOXBusiness

There is lots of talk about the "fiscal cliff" the U.S. faces at year end, as stimulus and tax cuts go away.



So the last thing the government needs now is market distrust in its job numbers. But, as analysts dig into the government job numbers, questions are increasingly being raised about the reliability of the data, from questionable revisions in the weekly jobless numbers to the odd changes in unemployment rates.


For 59 out of the last 60 weeks, the weekly jobless numbers have been revised, after the fact, always in the same direction: higher. That's unheard of.


Those revisions higher make the present week’s unemployment number look better in comparison, more so since the markets often treat the prior week’s revision as an afterthought.


And there is statistical manipulation in the unemployment rate, too. The government’s reported unemployment number doesn’t include people who stopped looking for work, but who want jobs.


The Bureau of Labor Statistics says the unemployment rate is dropping, and fell from 10% in October 2009 to 8.2% now. That’s got the White House and media pundits saying an economic recovery has taken place, and that the President’s stimulus bill, which cost more than $750 billion to date, has driven unemployment down towards 8% as promised.


However, the unemployment rate is the number of people out of work but who are actively looking. The government doesn’t count in that rate the now 6.3 million who have given up and stopped looking for work, but want jobs. That number has grown from 5.7 million in January 2009.


So, this "improvement" in the unemployment rate is artificial -- it was due to workers giving up and dropping out of the labor force.


The statistic to look at simply counts the people who are either working or not working. It sets aside the idiosyncratic manipulation whether they’re actively looking for work or not.


If the adult labor force participation rate stayed the same today as it was when the Great Recession ended in June 2009, at 67.5%, the unemployment rate would be 10.9%.


“Some 80% of the reduction” in the unemployment rate from 10% hit in October 2009 to today’s 8.2% “has been from adults quitting the labor force,” says economist Peter Morici.


Morici adds the unemployment rate “rises to 14.5% if you factor back in those who’ve stopped looking for work but would re-enter if there were jobs, as well as part-time workers who would prefer full-time positions.”


Yes, the number of people who have given up looking for work include retiring baby boomers. Still, there is no decent government data showing the number of actual, retiring baby boomers, only estimates. And there are no solid data showing the number of boomers retiring who still want to work.


Overall, government estimates show we have less people wanting to look for work as the population ages, and that’s bad for Social Security, which depends on workers funding it. The “labor force participation rate is declining as baby boomers retire, and what is striking is that decline even includes the number of students and immigrants looking for jobs,” says James Farrell, FOX News analyst.


So ask yourself this: As more people drop out looking for a job, is it right that the government counts it so the unemployment rate looks lower than it really is?


What’s important is the broader trend. Since President Obama took office, America has lost a net 740,000 jobs. But during the first 30 months of President Ronald Reagan’s economic recovery, which started in December 1982, total U.S. employment increased by 8.9 million jobs.


All of this was borne out in the disappointing April ADP employment report today on new private sector jobs, which arrives two days before the Dept. of Labor’s payrolls report for last month.


The ADP number came in showing 119,000 jobs were created in the private sector in April, while analysts had expected it would show that U.S. employers added 177,000 workers (still lower than the 209,000 increase recorded in March.)


It's important to note that the ADP jobs report has tracked the Labor Department’s numbers closely for the last 10 years, according to Charles Brady, senior editor at FOX Business.


“While there is often a wide variance between the two readings, the directional correlation is very strong -- they move in the same direction,” Brady says.


The engine of U.S. job growth, small businesses (those with 1-49 employees), reported a weak 58,000 jobs created, the third straight monthly decline and the lowest since August. Small businesses that produce goods lost jobs, too. Large businesses with more than 500 employees added just 4,000 jobs.


ADP says weather may have played a factor. Better hiring in the mild winter months could be leading to a “payback” in the spring, as businesses have already done the hiring they need for now. Still, all of this means it is unlikely there will be a decline in the unemployment rate Friday, unless the labor force shrinks again, which would not be good, either.


This Friday, forecasters expect the Labor Department to report the economy added 165,000 jobs in April -- better than the 120,000 in March, but still under the 212,000 rate for the first quarter, when the U.S. economy grew at just a 2.2% annualized rate.


The U.S. economy is creating jobs, but it is struggling, adding jobs at a rate of just 131,000 a month in 2011, which is not enough to reduce the unemployment rate.


Morici says the U.S. economy “must add 13 million jobs over the next three years -- 362,000 each month -- to bring unemployment down to 6%. GDP would have to increase at a 4% to 5% pace.”


So there you have it.


Since when does a nation’s labor force shrink during a recovery? It should not shrink, it should grow in a recovery. The labor force participation rate is at the rate it was in 1979 and 1982, even around the same rate it was back in 1969, while the worker population has grown dramatically since.


The rate now is 63.8%, trending at the 30-year low it just hit this past January, at 63.7%. Today there are 154.7 million people over age 16 who either have jobs or want jobs, but out of a much bigger total U.S. population of 16 or older, 242.6 million.


That’s around the same level in July 1982, when the labor force participation rate was 65.3%. There were 110.3 million people working or who wanted to work out of a smaller population of 172.2 million people aged 16 or older.


The labor force participation rate has stayed pretty much the same as it was in 1969, at 60.1%, and 63.8% in February 1979, when the total U.S. population of 16 or older was smaller. The same holds true for more than a decade ago, in April, 2000, when the employment-to-population ratio was 64.7%. That’s when the overall population was lower. at 282 million, versus the 310 million today

Inflation

Anyone with 1/2 a brain has known what is now being stated in the media. INFLATION is back with a vengeance.

For the past 4 years, we have seen the prices of everything families purchase go up and the excuses for why you are paying more for a lot less. This effects everyone especially since no one is getting any appreciable increases in pay.

For the present administration to think people are OK with this is laughable.

We need new leadership in Washington, DC and relief for families who are trying to get by on less $$$ in a tough economy.

It all goes back to what Ronald Reagan said in 1980 when he ran against Jimmy Carter,

" Are you better off now than 4 years ago ?"

The answer tells you what is needed when you go to vote in November. We need to elect a President who understands that people cannot pay more and need for prices to go down.


Inflation: Not as low as you think
By Kathy Kristof - CBS News

Forget the modest 3.1 percent rise in the Consumer Price Index, the government's widely used measure of inflation. Everyday prices are up some 8 percent over the past year, according to the American Institute for Economic Research.

The not-for-profit research group measures inflation without looking at the big, one-time purchases that can skew the numbers. That means they don't look at the price of houses, furniture, appliances, cars, or computers. Instead, AIER focuses on Americans' typical daily purchases, such as food, gasoline, child care, prescription drugs, phone and television service, and other household products.

The institute contends that to get a good read on inflation's "sticker shock" effect, you must look at the cost of goods that the average household buys at least once a month and factor in only the kinds of expenses that are subject to change. That, too, eliminates the cost of housing because when you finance your home with a fixed-rate mortgage, that expense remains constant until you refinance or move.

The group maintains that this index better measures the real-world impact of price changes, particularly for people on a budget. And, largely as the result of the recent run-up in gas prices, this "everyday price index" (EPI) suggests that Americans are being pinched far more tightly than the official inflation measure would have you believe.

Over the past year, the EPI is up just over 8 percent, according to the economics group. The biggest factor: Motor fuel and transportation costs are up 21.06 percent from year-ago levels. The cost of food, prescription drugs, and tobacco also have increased faster than the government's inflation measure, rising 3.56 percent, 4.21 percent, and 3.4 percent, respectively.

On the bright side, prices of household fuel (natural gas and electricity) and supplies have increased only 2.74 percent; recreation and personal care products are up less than 1 percent; and telephone or Internet services are down 0.66 percent.

Admittedly, the purchases that the EPI tracks make up slightly less than 40 percent of the average household budget. But Steven Cunningham, research and education director at AIER, says these items are what contribute to the "sticker shock at the gasoline pump and the supermarket check-out line."

SOTU

Lies, Lies and more Damn Lies...If he told the truth, it would have sounded more like this cartoon....

Facebook will offer " Cloud Girlfriend " - They oughta rename it to "FAKEBOOK"

People are acting more delusional and Facebook is leading the way in assisting them.



It used to be that if you made something up to deceive others, it was seen as dishonest and wrong...now, we have a start-up company that will provide you with an online " Cloud Girlfriend " who will provide you with "the illusion" of a real person who is your girlfriend....and chats with you online so other Facebook users can see this....

WTF?? I think by the nature of what it represents, and how people use the product (by design), we should rename Facebook to FAKEBOOK as the stuff it shows people is more fake than real....

One more sign that people should ditch Facebook and focus on having real realtionships with friends & family....Facebook and the "Cloud Girlfriend" start-up offer a "fake" sense of connection to real relationships...and the narcissistic nature of this type of behavior is just repugnant.

Fake Facebook Girlfriends From "Cloud Girlfriend" Will Be Run By Real People Dylan Love Mar. 28, 2011, businessinsider.com

Get A Fake Facebook Girlfriend With New Startup "Cloud Girlfriend"
"Cloud Girlfriend," is a startup that creates the "perfect girlfriend" out of thin air for users. The "perfect girlfriend" then sends you public messages on your Facebook wall, so you can deceive your friends into thinking you have a girlfriend as well as make you feel like you have a companion.

After we covered the company, co-founder David Fuhriman reached out to fill us in on some more details about Cloud Girlfriend: Cloud Girlfriend will consist of a network of real human beings, not automated bots, that users will interact with over Facebook. Fuhriman thinks it can help guys get a girlfriend.

If visitors to your Facebook profile to see wall posts from your imaginary sweetheart, they might think, "Someone else thinks highly enough of this person to date him, so maybe I should too." Cloud Girlfriend is not a porn site or adult chat service. (Although it does remind us of a hotline where you can talk to someone of the opposite sex if you're lonely.)

Fuhriman said the site has a therapeutic value and can fulfill psychological needs like intimacy and friendship even though the interaction is virtual. He also maintains that these interactions can even build self confidence and help users navigate real-life situations. We asked Fuhriman for some details about how he plans to follow Facebook's terms of service and make money, but he said those were details he couldn't go into.

If he's going to be toying with Facebook profiles to create fake girlfriends, we assume Facebook will hammer him. Facebook doesn't want spammy accounts filling up the social network. Fuhriman thinks his company will enhance someone's experience on a social network, not dilute it. He also notes it's already filled with fake accounts: "There will always be more profiles of dogs and cats on social networks than there will ever be of Cloud Girlfriends."